O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 240

MOTION to Admit Exhibits filed by Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 6/24/2014. Replies due by 6/25/2014. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit M, #15 Exhibit N, #16 Exhibit O)(Bojedla, Swathi) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

Exhibit I

THE STATE OF NCAA
DIVISION I FOOTBALL:
A SURVEY OF DIVISION I-A & I-AA
PRESIDENTS & CHANCELLORS

!

"

Final Report
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

January 2002

100 Market Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
[phone]

2487-1

CONTENTS
Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................... i
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 1
Study Objectives.................................................................................................... 1
Study Method......................................................................................................... 1

RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................................................. 3
Overall Strengths & Weaknesses......................................................................... 3
Greatest Strengths..................................................................................... 3
Greatest Weaknesses................................................................................. 4
Mixed Reactions ........................................................................................ 6
Financial Status of College Football .................................................................... 8
Current Status ........................................................................................... 8
Long-term Outlook ................................................................................... 9
Impact of Current Economy .................................................................. 10
Current Bowl/Championship System................................................................ 12
Overall View ............................................................................................ 12
Greatest Strengths................................................................................... 12
Greatest Weaknesses............................................................................... 13
Mixed Reactions ...................................................................................... 14
Primary Concerns ................................................................................... 14
Student-Athlete Welfare ..................................................................................... 17
Overall View ............................................................................................ 17
Specific Aspects of Student-Athlete Welfare ........................................ 18

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 21
APPENDIX:

2487-2

List of respondents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2001, the NCAA commissioned The Taylor Research & Consulting
Group, Inc., to conduct a survey of Division I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors.
The purpose of this survey was to collect input from these critical stakeholders on a
number of important issues the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC) has been
charged with studying.
The research consisted of one-on-one interviews with presidents and chancellors
of Division I-A and I-AA institutions. A total of 91 presidents and chancellors were
interviewed for this research64 from Division I-A institutions and 27 from Division IAA schools. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and included a mix of
closed-ended questions to collect ratings on specific issues, along with a number of openended questions designed to collect unstructured input from respondents.
Some of the key findings from this research include the following:
1. There are many strengths and positive things about college football. The
greatest strengths of college football include the opportunities for higher
education it provides to many who otherwise would not have access to it; it offers
a rewarding, enriching, positive experience to student-athletes; it provides
tremendous entertainment value to the institutional community and the general
public; it helps foster pride and community spirit; it can help develop important
bonds between institutions and their host communities.
2. There are also a number of significant problems and concerns that need to be
addressed. The biggest concerns involve finances and costs of running
programs; achieving the right balance between academics and athletics;
addressing what is seen as the growing gap between the ‘haves” and “have-nots”
among I-A schools; the lack of racial diversity on coaching staffs; and an
overemphasis on winning as the primary definition of a successful program.
3. The areas where presidents and chancellors think action most needs to be
taken are the following:
Require greater emphasis on academics, with penalties that have real bite for
#$
institutions that do not meet specified graduation rates for student-athletes.
A
#$ more equitable distribution of postseason revenues.
Help from the NCAA for I-AA schools in marketing their programs better.
#$

2487-3

Greater involvement on the part of presidents and chancellors in addressing
#$
these key issues by reasserting their authority over their own programs.

2487-4

ii

The Taylor Group

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
STUDY OBJECTIVES
In the fall of 2001, the NCAA commissioned The Taylor Research & Consulting
Group, Inc., to conduct a survey of Division I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors.
The purpose of this survey was to collect input from these critical stakeholders on a
number of important issues the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC) has been
charged with studying. The survey was designed to collect opinions, thoughts, and
suggestions from presidents and chancellors on the following key issues:
An
#$ overall assessment of the state of Division I college football.
An
#$ evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of college football, including
specific areas such as the student-athlete experience, racial diversity among
coaching staffs, attendance, television, marketing and promotion, and public
perceptions of the game.
The current financial status of the game and its future outlook.
#$
The structure of postseason competition.
#$
Student-athlete welfare.
#$
Suggestions for maximizing the long-term strength and viability of college
#$
football.

STUDY METHOD
The research consisted of one-on-one interviews with presidents and chancellors
of Division I-A and I-AA institutions. The interviews were conducted by highly trained
executive interviewers by telephone between November 11, 2001, and January 14, 2002.
The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each and consisted of a series of closedended questions to collect ratings on a range of specific issues, along with a number of
open-ended questions where respondents were given an opportunity to discuss their
thoughts on the issues raised in the interview.
The NCAA provided The Taylor Group with a list of 76 Division I-A and 37
Division I-AA institutions to contact for participation in this study. All potential

2487-5

respondents were sent a letter from President Wethington, chairman of the FSOC,
outlining the purpose and goals of the survey and asking for the respondent’s
participation. A total of 91 presidents and chancellors were interviewed for this
research64 from Division I-A institutions and 27 from Division I-AA schools.1 This
constitutes an exceptionally high response rate of more than 80%.

1

A full list of participating institutions and respondents is included in the appendix to this report.

2487-6

2

The Taylor Group

RESEARCH FINDINGS
OVERALL STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
When asked to rate a variety of eight specific aspects of college football overall as
either strengths or weaknesses, some clear distinctions emerged both within and between
I-A and I-AA respondents. At the broadest level, I-A respondents are more likely than
their I-AA colleagues to see more strengths in college football. Both groups, however,
clearly agree on what the greatest weaknesses arenamely finances and the racial
diversity of coaching staffs.

Greatest Strengths
Among I-A respondents there are four issues that emerged clearly as being
strengths of college football, i.e., where a majority of I-A respondents rated them as being
a strength. Those strengths include the following:
The student-athlete experience: A total of 75% see this as a strength (22% as
#$
a “major strength” and another 53% as a “strength”).
The public’s perception of college football: A total of 65% see this as a
#$
strength (17% as a “major strength” and another 48% as a “strength”).
Attendance: A total of 62% see this as a strength (30% as a “major strength”
#$
and another 32% as a “strength”).
The marketing and promotion of college football: A total of 62% also see
#$
this as a strength (14% as a “major strength” and another 48% as a
“strength”).
Among I-AA respondents, however, only one issuethe student-athlete
experiencewas seen as a strength by a majority of respondents (65%, with 23% saying
it is a “major strength” and the remaining 42% a “strength.”)
If we also look at the open-ended commentary and discussion that took place
during these interviews, there are a number of themes that emerge clearly as strengths of
college football. Those strengths include the following:
Opportunity: It provides the opportunity for a college education to many
#$
individuals who otherwise would not be able to go to college.

2487-7

3

The Taylor Group

Exposure: It provides a great deal of positive exposure for institutions.
#$
Entertainment: It offers tremendous entertainment value—for the student
#$
body, alumni, and the general public at large.
Pride and Spirit: It fosters a sense of pride, spirit, and enthusiasm among the
#$
campus community and alumni.
Community Relations: It offers opportunities for the development of
#$
important ties between the institution and its larger surrounding community.
Positive Experience: It provides a unique, positive experience for student#$
athletes, e.g., it is an enjoyable experience and it teaches important values that
will serve them well later in life.

Greatest Weaknesses
Two issues that clearly emerge as weaknesses of college football for a large
majority of institution headsthe financial status of the game and the racial diversity of
coaching staffs.
The financial status of college football: Among I-A respondents a total of
#$
64% see this as a weakness (36% as a “major weakness” and another 28% as a
“weakness”), while among I-AA respondents a total of 84% see this as a
weakness (44% as a “major weakness” and another 40% as a “weakness”).
Racial diversity among head coaches and coaching staffs: Among I-A
#$
respondents a total of 78% see this as a weakness (42% as a “major weakness”
and another 36% as a “weakness”), while among I-AA respondents a total of
72% see this as a weakness (36% as a “major weakness” and another 36% as a
“weakness”).
With regard to the financial status of college football, there are a few factors that
underlie the feeling that this is a weakness. First, there is a widespread perception that
only a small proportion of programs at both the I-A and I-AA levels either break even or
turn a profit, i.e., bring in more revenue than their expenses. In addition, many
respondents feel that too much money is spent on football programs.
“We spend way too much money.”
“The fact is, most I-AA programs are operating at a major deficit.”
“It’s expensive, and few of us have revenues that would even begin to cover the
expenses.”

2487-8

4

The Taylor Group

“The fact that most universities—beyond the top 20 to 25—are not self-supporting
with respect to athletics programs is college athletics’ greatest financial
shortcoming.”
“When you only have about 10% of your schools that are either breaking even or
making any money . . . you’d have to consider that a weakness.”
Second, there is a feeling among many that an “arms race” has evolved in college
football, where a lot of schools feel pressure to spend more and more money on facilities and
high-priced coaches in order to have a successful program that hopefully will generate enough
revenue to support both the football program as well as other sports programs.
“Coaches’ salaries are outlandish—a fraction of what those running schools
make. Schools are therefore thrust into cost wars and keeping up with the
Joneses, which sends a bad message.”
“We’re spending too much money on the arms race, salaries, and budgets that
are escalating at an alarming rate.”
“If there is a threat hanging over football, it is the multi-million dollar stadium,
locker rooms, and the $2 million paid for a football coach. Only a handful of
schools in this country can afford this madness—and it is nothing but madness.”
Finally, among I-A respondents there is clearly a perception that there is a
disturbing disparity between the “haves and have-nots” that is closely linked to the BCS
system, meaning that a small number of institutions reap enormous financial benefits
from the BCS while most other schools get little or nothing.
“Financially, there is a time bomb in the growing chasm between the haves and
have-nots in college football.”
“It’s an oligopoly, where 60% of the schools exclude 40% from sharing in the
money. The Bowl Championship Series reserves 80 to 90% of the money for
themselves. . . . Six conferences have been able to tie up the funds, and it doesn’t
matter how good you are. If you’re not in there, you don’t get it.”
“I think the alignment of BCS vs. Non-BCS is just creating a bigger class of haves
and have-nots. If there is an overall escalation of costs for coaches and facilities,
then everyone is having to pay for it.”
In terms of the racial diversity of coaching staffs, respondents overwhelmingly
feel that minorities, particularly African-Americans, are not sufficiently represented in
the coaching ranks of Division I football, especially at the head coach level. Quite
simply, the thinking of presidents and chancellors is that there is too great an imbalance
between the proportion of African-Americans in the coaching ranks and among the
players. Their feeling seems to be that not enough effort has been made to recruit and

2487-9

5

The Taylor Group

develop minority coaches. Beyond issues of simple fairness (which are absolutely
important) some also feel there is a negative cost of this situation in that it deprives
African-American and other minority players of good role models who they can easily
relate to and with whom they can identify.
“The numbers of minorities holding head coaching positions is deplorable.”
“There has not been sufficient effort made to recruit minority coaches and
provide the support they need.”
“The coaching staff does not reflect the student-athlete diversity at all. This is a
problem for both role modeling and from a career standpoint for the coaches
involved.”

College Football—Strengths and Weaknesses
Is each of the following a
strength or weakness:
The student-athlete
experience
Public’s perception of
college football
Attendance
Marketing & promotion
of college football
Television
Structure of postseason
competition
Financial status of
college football
Racial diversity among
head coaches/staff

I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA

Major
Strength
22%
23%
17%
12%
30%
16%
14%
12%
30%
19%
8%
4%
5%
0%
7%
4%

A
Strength
53%
42%
48%
35%
32%
24%
48%
27%
21%
27%
29%
31%
11%
4%
8%
8%

Mixed
Neither /Both
4%
11%
4%
12%
11%
13%
15%
12%
22%
8%
28%
12%
11%
11%
23%
12%
6%
29%
15%
4%
11%
6%
35%
4%
6%
14%
4%
8%
7%
2%
8%
8%

A
Weakness
6%
12%
8%
12%
8%
12%
13%
15%
10%
15%
22%
23%
28%
40%
36%
36%

Major
Weakness
3%
8%
3%
15%
2%
8%
3%
12%
5%
19%
24%
4%
36%
44%
42%
36%

Mixed Reactions
Among I-AA respondents there were very mixed reactions to five of these eight
issues, with significant proportions of respondents rating some as strengths and others
seeing them as weaknesses, while still others think they cut both ways. These five issues
where I-AA respondents have very mixed reactions follow:

2487-10

6

The Taylor Group

The public’s perception of college football: Of the respondents, 47% see this
#$
as a strength while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it is
“neither” or “both.”
Television: There were 46% who see this as a strength, while 34% see it as a
#$
weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.”
Attendance: A total of 40% see this as a strength, while 20% see it as a
#$
weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.”
The marketing and promotion of college football: There were 39% who see
#$
this as a strength, while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it
is “neither” or “both.”
The structure of postseason competition: Of the respondents, 35% see this as
#$
a strength, while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it is
“neither” or “both.”
Among I-A respondents reactions were also mixed on the issues of television and
the structure of postseason competition. On the issue of television, I-A respondents are
mostly positive with 51% seeing it as a strength. However, a substantial proportion
(29%) think it cuts both ways, while another 15% see it as a weakness. They are,
however, much less likely than their I-AA colleagues to see television as a weakness.
With regard to the structure of postseason competition, I-A respondents are more
polarized than they are on the issue of television and they tilt more toward the negative,
with 46% seeing it as a weakness compared with only 37% who see it as a strength.
Given the very different structure of postseason competition between I-A and I-AA, it is
interesting to note that I-A respondents are substantially more likely than their I-AA
counterparts to feel this is a weakness of college football. The primary concerns about
the BCS system are that it is seen as unfairin terms of how participants are decided “by
a computer” and that participation is restricted to certain schools. Many respondents
suggested that a playoff system of some type would be better. There was also a feeling
expressed by some that many of the bowls exist simply as popular entertainment and as
sources of revenue for television, but that they have little to do with what respondents see
as the proper role or function of college athletics.
“They allow a computer to decide who gets to play, as opposed to letting teams’
winning records and ability on the field determine it.”
“I think the system is not fair fundamentally. It’s just not fair that the major
opportunities are only accorded to a small percentage of the divisions.”
“There is no public confidence that the best teams go to the bowls.”

2487-11

7

The Taylor Group

“There is virtually no opportunity for non-BCS schools to play in the bowl
games.”
“The bowl system is out of hand. There are far too many bowls. You now even
have a few teams playing in the bowls with losing records.”
“There are too many bowls and they’re of lesser significance.”
Looking at additional open-ended comments from respondents about what they
see as the main weaknesses of college football, the most important general themes that
emerged include the following:
The cost: Trying to run a successful football program is becoming
#$
increasingly expensive and burdensome.
The imperative to win: There is too much emphasis on winning as the
#$
definition of success, which then drives other decisions.
Over-commercialization: College football is becoming over-commercialized
#$
and too much like a business.
Lack of academics/athletics balance: For programs and individual student#$
athletes, there is too much conflict or a lack of balance between academics
and athletic success—with the former too often sacrificed for the latter.
The haves and have-nots: There is too much inequity between the top 20-30
#$
I-A programs and all the rest who are trying to compete but finding it
increasingly difficult to do so—a growing split between the “haves” and
“have-nots.”

FINANCIAL STATUS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL
Overall, very few Division I presidents and chancellors think the current financial
status of college football is very healthy, and there are many who think the sport has
some significant financial problems. Their perspective on the long-term financial outlook
is also not much more positive.

Current Status
In terms of the current financial status of college football, only 5% of I-A
respondents and 0% of I-AA respondents think it is “very healthy.” Division I-AA
respondents, however, are more concerned about the sport’s current financial status than
are their I-A colleagues.

2487-12

8

The Taylor Group

Among I-AA respondents, 35% think the sport’s current financial status is
#$
healthy but that there are developments that concern them, while a large
majority of 65% think the sport has significant financial problems right now.
Among I-A respondents, a slim majority of 51% think the sport’s current
#$
financial status is healthy but they have some concerns, while a smaller 44%
think the sport has significant financial problems.

Long-term Outlook
Looking to the long-term financial outlook for college football, Division I-A and
I-AA respondents have very similar reactions. Again, very few think the long-term
outlook is “solidly positive,” while most think it is either “mixed” or a “big concern.”
Among I-A respondents, only 8% think the long-term financial outlook is
#$
“solidly positive,” while a majority of 52% think the outlook is “mixed” and
the remaining 41% see “big concerns” surrounding finances.
Among I-AA respondents, none of these respondents think the long-term
#$
financial outlook is “solidly positive,” while most (54%) think the outlook is
“mixed” and the remaining 46% have “big concerns” about the sport’s
finances.
The issues that are driving the opinions of presidents and chancellors about the
current and future financial status of college football coalesce around what they see as
skyrocketing costs—for coaches’ salaries, scholarships, facilities, equipment, insurance,
and travel, plus what they see as a situation where only large schools are making a profit
and a lack of equitable revenue sharing of TV receipts.
“It’s getting tremendously more expensive. You have costs associated with
athletic scholarships, coaches’ salaries and equipment, medical insurance,
facilities, and so on. The expense equation is getting out of hand.”
“Coaches’ salaries and television money promote the chasm between the haves
and the have-nots.”
“The system is financially rewarding to some and a struggle for others. The
system is unfair.”
“The financial status is very good for the largest six conferences, but very bad for
everybody else.”
“Universities are investing an enormous amount of money in new facilities and
they are paying their coaches an enormous amount of money. I think that’s the

2487-13

9

The Taylor Group

pathway to bankruptcy. I think people are expecting—for competitive reasons—
universities to spend more money than they have.”
“I wish we could find ways to provide additional income to colleges below those
at the very top of the food chain.”
“Revenue generated through games and contracts should be spread evenly
throughout Division I, similar to basketball.”

Impact of Current Economy
Respondents were also asked about the impact on their institution, if any, of the
current economic conditions in the country. Most expect there to be some impacts, while
many have already experienced some negative consequences. There are some
generalized concerns that fund-raising for their institutions may become more difficult as
a result of the weakened economy, and that alumni may be less generous with their
donations because of the recession. In terms of their football programs in particular,
there was some speculation (though not extremely widespread) that attendance may
suffer somewhat as consumers cut back on discretionary spending for entertainment. By
far, however, the biggest impact to date has been at public institutions where many of
these presidents and chancellors said they have already had to deal with budget cutbacks
(in some cases significant ones) due to cuts in higher education funds appropriated by
their state legislatures.

2487-14

10

The Taylor Group

Financial Status of College Football
Division I-A Respondents
51%

52%

44%

41%

8%

5%

Long-term financial outlook

Current financial status
V e ry healthy

Solidly positive
Mixed
A big concern

He althy, b ut have c once rns
S ig nific ant f inanc ial p rob le m s

Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the current financial status of college football?
Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the long-term financial outlook for college football?

11

Financial Status of College Football
Division I-AA Respondents
65%

54%
46%
35%

0%

0%

Long-term financial outlook

Current financial status
Ve ry healthy

Solidly positive
Mixed
A big concern

He althy, b ut have c once rns
Sig nific ant f inanc ial p rob le m s

Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the current financial status of college football?
Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the long-term financial outlook for college football?

2487-15

11

12

The Taylor Group

CURRENT BOWL/CHAMPIONSHIP SYSTEM
Most Division I presidents and chancellors feel that the current bowl or
championship system needs some changeseither minor modifications or a major
overhaul. Only a small minority feels the system works just fine as is and does not need
any modifications. The biggest strengths of the current system are seen as the studentathlete experience and conference affiliations with bowl games or championship
qualification, while the greatest weaknesses focus on finances and methods of selecting
teams for bowl system games (among I-A respondents).

Overall View
When asked for their overall opinion of the current bowl (I-A) or championship
(I-AA) system, only around 2 in 10 Division I presidents and chancellors think the
current system works well as it is and doesn’t need any changes. Among the majority
who do think some changes are needed, I-A respondents are evenly split on whether
minor changes are needed or a significant overhaul is called for. Division I-AA
respondents are most likely to think only minor modifications are necessary, and they are
much less likely than their I-A colleagues to think a significant overhaul is needed.
Among I-A respondents, 40% think the bowl system “works well, but minor
#$
modifications are needed,” while a nearly equal number (42%) feel the bowl
system needs a “significant overhaul.”
Among I-AA respondents, a majority of 50% think the championship system
#$
needs minor modifications, while a much smaller proportion (29%) think it
needs a “significant overhaul.”

Greatest Strengths
Among I-A and I-AA respondents alike, there were two issues that were seen as
being strengths of the current bowl system. Those strengths include the following:
The student-athlete experience: Of I-A respondents, 84% see this as a
#$
strength (40% as a “major strength” and another 44% as a “strength”), as do
68% of I-AA respondents (32% as a “major strength” and another 36% as a
“strength”).
Conference affiliation with bowl/championship system games: Of I-A
#$
respondents, 62% see this as a strength (19% as a “major strength” and
another 43% as a “strength”), as do 67% of I-AA respondents (21% as a
“major strength” and another 46% as a “strength”).

2487-16

12

The Taylor Group

Current Bowl/Championship System
Division I-A Respondents
40%

Division I-AA Respondents
50%

42%

29%
21%

18%

Current I-A bow l system

C urrent I-A A championship system

W orks w ell
M inor modifications needed
S ignificant ov erhaul needed

W orks well
Minor modific ations needed
S ignific ant ov erhaul needed

Which statement comes closest to your view of the current bowl/championship system?
15

Greatest Weaknesses
The one aspect of the current bowl/championship system most likely to be seen as
a weakness by both I-A and I-AA respondents is the issue of finances.
Current bowl/championship system finances: Slightly fewer than a majority
#$
of I-A respondents (45%) see this as a weakness (20% as a “major weakness”
and another 25% as a “weakness”), as do 63% of I-AA respondents (37% as a
“major weakness” and another 26% as a “weakness”).
In addition, nearly half of I-A respondents (48%) also think the method of
selecting teams for bowl system games is a weakness, with 23% thinking this is a “major
weakness” and the remaining 25% saying it’s a “weakness.”

2487-17

13

The Taylor Group

Perceptions of the Current Bowl/Championship System
Is each of the following a
strength or weakness:
The student-athlete
experience
Conference affiliation
with postseason games
The number of games
played
Public’s perception of the
current system
Method of selecting teams
for postseason games
Current postseason
system finances

I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA

Major
Strength
40%
32%
19%
21%
16%
4%
3%
8%
8%
4%
5%
0%

A
Strength
44%
36%
43%
46%
35%
22%
39%
29%
25%
26%
25%
11%

Neither
2%
18%
6%
8%
10%
39%
16%
29%
12%
35%
10%
26%

Mixed
/Both
10%
5%
5%
4%
6%
4%
10%
8%
8%
0%
16%
0%

A
Weakness
3%
5%
14%
17%
16%
17%
25%
8%
25%
35%
25%
26%

Major
Weakness
2%
5%
13%
4%
18%
13%
7%
17%
23%
0%
20%
37%

Mixed Reactions
There are two issues related to the bowl/championship system on which both I-A
and I-AA have very mixed reactionsthe number of games played and the public’s
perception of the current system. On each of these issues there are substantial
proportions of respondents who see it as a strength, a weakness, or neither.
The number of games played: A bare majority of I-A respondents (51%) see
#$
this as a “strength” and 34% see it as a “weakness,” while around one in four
I-AA respondents (26%) see it as a strength and 30% see it as a “weakness.”
The public’s perception of the system: A plurality of I-A respondents (42%)
#$
see this as a “strength” and 32% see it as a “weakness,” while almost 4 in 10
I-AA respondents (37%) see it as a strength and 25% see it as a “weakness.”
Also, among I-AA respondents 30% think the method of selecting teams for
championship system games is a strength, while almost equal numbers think this is either
a weakness of the current system (35%) or neither a strength nor a weakness (35%).

Primary Concerns
The three issues related to the current bowl/championship system that were most
likely to be seen as weaknesses were the number of games played, the method of
selecting teams, and finances. Looking at the open-ended comments of respondents who

2487-18

14

The Taylor Group

saw these as weaknesses provides some valuable insight into what they see as the
fundamental problems or concerns.
In terms of the number of games played, many are concerned that there are
simply too many games that generate too little interest, that dilute the meaning of going
to a bowl game, and that take too much time away from academics for the studentathlete.
“They play too many games, which is a great stress on their academic
performance. Likewise, it extends so long that we play this Saturday and all of
our students have already gone home for the holidays. It’s difficult for students to
be involved as spectators and supporters of the team.”
“There are too many bowl games and it dilutes the entire meaning of going to a
bowl game.”
“The number of bowl games makes us look silly. Bowls are not special anymore.
It would be like giving five Heisman trophies.”
As for the method of selecting teams, this was more of a concern among I-A
respondents, among which there are strong feelings that the current system is not entirely
fair or equitable.
“Bowl selections are made based on conference affiliations, attendance, and
income rather than on a recognition of the best teams. Having playoffs would
address this weakness.”
“Only six conferences are eligible for the BCS structure, so if you’re outside that,
you have no opportunity to play in the BCS bowl even if you are in the top 25 and
have significant wins.”
“I think that the bowls have become economic development activities for towns
and for cities, and that distorts the original purpose of the bowl. The original
purpose of bowls was to recognize outstanding teams. When a school is required
to buy 25,000 tickets or make contributions to the cost of the bowl, that makes
zero sense to me.”
Finally, the most common themes surrounding the perception that finances are a
weakness of the current bowl/championship system reflect concerns about the financial
burden that going to a bowl game places on some schools (especially at the I-AA level),
and the feeling that revenue generated by the system is not equitably distributed to
member schools.
“The costs of the additional games, including travel and associated activities, are
not compensated by the popularity of the games associated with the

2487-19

15

The Taylor Group

championships. There is almost never enough time to cover the expenses.
Basically, it punishes a program for its success.”
“The structure of the BCS series results in huge money going to just four bowls.”
“The major bowls are financially sound, but minor ones can prove extremely
costly to attend.”
“It’s very good for the six largest conferences, but very bad for everybody else.”
“The finances are a little ridiculous. Why would you fly halfway across the
country with your mediocre team to play another mediocre team, which has no
particular rivalry with your mediocre team, and you are paying money to do it to
boot. The whole thing is ridiculous.”

2487-20

16

The Taylor Group

STUDENT-ATHLETE WELFARE
In terms of their overall view of student-athlete welfare and college football, I-A
presidents and chancellors are significantly more positive than their I-AA colleagues.
However, on a number of specific dimensions of student-athlete welfare, ranging from
injuries and medical treatment to quality of life and education, there are relatively few
differences of opinion between I-A and I-AA respondents. The issues of greatest concern
in this area focus on educational matters such as graduation rates and quality of
education.

Overall View
In terms of their overall view of college football student-athlete welfare, a
majority of I-A respondents (52%) are “mostly positive” about where things stand today,
while one-third of them (33%) have “mixed feelings” and the remaining 16% are “mostly
concerned” about where things stand. In contrast to these data, only 15% of I-AA
respondents are “mostly positive,” while a majority of 56% have “mixed feelings” and
30% are “mostly concerned” about the current situation.

Student-Athlete Welfare
Division I-A Respondents

Division I-AA Respondents
5 6%

52 %

33%

3 0%
1 5%

16 %

I-A A

I-A

Mos tly po sitiv e
Mixed fe elings
Mos tly co nc e rned

M o stly po s itive
M ixed fee lings
M o stly co ncerne d

Overall, as you think about student-athlete welfare in college football are you mostly positive, do
you have mixed feelings, or are you mostly concerned about where things stand today?
22

2487-21

17

The Taylor Group

Specific Aspects of Student-Athlete Welfare
Across six different aspects of student-athlete welfare that respondents were asked
about, opinions were very consistent between I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors.
On four of these six issues there were solid majorities of respondents who had a positive
perspective, i.e., who agreed (either “strongly” or “somewhat”) that college football was
taking positive steps in these areas. These four aspects of student-athlete welfare that
respondents feel most positively about include the following:
College football is taking positive steps to . . .
Minimize football injuries and provide the best medical care: Of I-A
#$
respondents, 97% agree with this (with 64% “strongly” agreeing), as do 93%
of I-AA respondents (with 54% “strongly” agreeing).
Ensure a strong quality of life for student-athletes: Of I-A respondents, 86%
#$
agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 78% of I-AA respondents.
Encourage sportsmanship and good behavior: Of I-A respondents, 75%
#$
agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 69% of I-AA respondents.
Maintain proper balance between athletics and academics: Of I-A
#$
respondents, 57% agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 62% of IAA respondents.
We should note, however, that efforts to minimize injuries and provide the best
medical care stands out as the one area where respondents feel much more strongly that
college football is taking positive steps. Conversely, on the issue of maintaining proper
balance between athletics and academics we should note that the generally positive
data cited above are in fact quite soft in that only very few respondents “strongly” agree
that positive steps are being taken on this issue.
The two remaining issues of student-athlete welfare that were asked
aboutgraduation rates and quality of educationare areas where the opinions of
presidents and chancellors are much more mixed and most likely to be negative.
College football is taking positive steps to . . .
Maintain high graduation rates among student-athletes: Division I-A
#$
respondents are closely divided on this, with 53% agreeing and 47%
disagreeing. Among I-AA respondents only 41% agree with this while a
majority of 59% disagree.
Make sure student athletes get the best education possible: Among I-A
#$
respondents only 47% agree with this and a majority of 55% disagree, while

2487-22

18

The Taylor Group

Division I-AA respondents are evenly split at 52% agreeing and 49%
disagreeing.

College Football and Student-Athlete Welfare
Do you agree/disagree that college
football is taking positive steps to:
Minimize football injuries/provide
best medical care for student-athletes
Ensure a strong quality of life for
student-athletes
Encourage sportsmanship/good
behavior among student-athletes
Maintain proper balance between
athletics and academics
Maintain high graduation rates
among student-athletes
Make sure student-athletes get the
best education possible

I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA
I-A
I-AA

Agree
Strongly
64%
54%
28%
19%
20%
15%
5%
12%
17%
19%
13%
11%

Agree
Disagree
Somewhat Somewhat
33%
2%
39%
4%
58%
13%
59%
11%
55%
17%
54%
31%
52%
34%
50%
15%
36%
27%
22%
33%
33%
39%
41%
19%

Disagree
Strongly
2%
4%
2%
11%
8%
0%
9%
23%
20%
26%
16%
30%

Respondents had a lot to say about the issues of graduation rates and making sure
student-athletes get the best possible education. Fundamentally, their concerns in these
areas reflect strong feelings that member schools and the NCAA are not doing enough,
that coaching staffs and schools too often pull student-athletes away from academics and
steer them toward undemanding programs of study that will not serve them well later in
life, and perhaps most simply that not enough time is allowed or required for academics.
“We need to emphasize the student side of the student athlete more.”
“There is too much emphasis on the amount of time in practice. . . . Either
students are not taking their academics seriously, or the universities are admitting
students who do not belong there in the first place.”
“Unfortunately we’ve let college football take us away from the primary objective
of educating athletes. The welfare of athletes should center on not just physical
and medical care, but also academically. Are we giving them the proper
classroom time and proper ‘away’ time from athletics? I think the answer is no.”
“The NCAA hasn’t done anything at all to help maintain high graduation rates
among student-athletes, and the rates are abominable across the board in college
football.”
“The record speaks for itself, with major football powers having only 35%
graduation rates.”

2487-23

19

The Taylor Group

“If you look at the graduation rate, they are all over the map, but for the most
part they are fairly embarrassing. I think a lot of emphasis is put on just getting
good athletes and whether they graduate or not is not as important.”
“It is shameful that we have a number of institutions in the SEC that have
graduation rates in the teens. It shows that they are not doing anything. What we
need to do is tie scholarships to graduation rates.”
“They need to have more breadth to their education, more than just time in the
classroom and time on the practice field. They need to be part of the campus
culture and student organizations other than football.”
“With the exception of a handful of institutions, all too often universities come up
with not very challenging majors for some student-athletes, who are then left
without credentials that will help them in life.”
“In many instances the student athletes are directed into majors and programs
where their educational outcomes will not be challenged. They are never taught
that they have to work as hard in the classroom as they do on the football field.”

2487-24

20

The Taylor Group

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall Conclusions
There is much that is positive about college football and much to be proud of.
Among the many good things Division I presidents and chancellors see in college
football, those that stand out most are the following:
Opportunity: It provides opportunities for higher education to individuals
#$
who otherwise might not have access to it.
Positive Experience: It offers many student-athletes a rewarding, enriching,
#$
valuable, and ultimately positive experience.
Entertainment: It provides tremendous entertainment value both to the
#$
institutional community (i.e., students, faculty, staff, and alumni) and the
general public as well.
Pride & Spirit: It can help foster the development of pride and community
#$
spirit within the institutional community.
Community Bonds: It can help in the development of important bonds
#$
between institutions and their host communities.
There are, however, problems and significant concerns that need to be addressed,
primarily in terms of the following issues:
Finances and Costs: There is strong feeling that it costs too much to run
#$
football programs, that these costs are escalating out of control, and that
football programs are becoming too much of a financial burden on
institutions.
Academics/Athletics Balance: There is extremely strong sentiment that this
#$
is far out of balance in favor of athletics and that strong measures by both the
NCAA and individual institutions should be taken. If not, then too many
student-athletes will ultimately be ill served by their participation in college
football.
The “Haves and Have-nots”: There is a perception of a growing divide
#$
between successful and unsuccessful programs in a limited number of I-A
conferences that reap the lion’s share of the benefits from the current structure
of postseason competition.

2487-25

21

The Taylor Group

Racial Diversity: The representation of minorities, particularly African#$
Americans, is nowhere near where it ought to be given the prevalence of
minority players on teams.
Overemphasis on Winning: Many presidents and chancellors feel Division I
#$
college football has gotten too far away from what college football ought to be
about and what role it should play at their institutions, and much of this is
driven by what they feel is an overemphasis on winning as the primary
definition of what makes for a successful program.

What Needs to Be Done
1. Require greater emphasis on academics. This should happen both in terms of the
admission standards used and academic performance standards applied after studentathletes are in school. Some specific suggestions include:
Reducing the time demands of athletics on student-athletes.
%$
Imposing real penalties with bite, e.g., taking away scholarships for schools that
%$
do not demonstrate appropriate emphasis on academics by meeting specified
graduation rates for student athletes.
“We need to impose penalties, such as loss of scholarships and participation
in postseason play for lack of academic success. We need to tie opportunities
to legitimate academic success.”
“There should be coaching incentives tying their compensation to
academics.”
2. More equitable distribution of postseason revenues. Many respondents feel there
has to be a better way to more equitably share revenues from postseason competition,
which might help alleviate some of the financial burdens many schools are under.
Many respondents at the I-A level think some kind of playoff system would be better
in this regard than the current BCS system, which they regard as relatively closed and
unfair.
“Fundamentally, the NCAA needs to take charge of postseason football and then
develop a revenue distribution that is fair.”
“We have to figure out a more equitable way of doing the bowls and sharing the
huge revenues that are out there for television.”
3. Help I-AA schools market better. A number of I-AA respondents suggested they
would like more help from the NCAA in marketing their games, to help make them

2487-26

22

The Taylor Group

more attractive and hopefully generate more revenue.
“If the NCAA could assist I-AA with marketing, with television and with better
financial support of the championship, it would be extraordinarily helpful.”
“The NCAA needs to recognize the fiscal stress experienced by the I-AA
institutions and provide additional support.”
4. Greater involvement of presidents and chancellors. A number of respondents feel
that presidents and chancellors have to play a much more active role, to essentially
reassert their authority over their own programs, in order to address the issues and
concerns they have.
“It is up to university presidents to decide priorities and to withstand the force
that alumni and contributors may bring to bear on a particular institution.
Presidents must, and do, understand that student-athletes are student-athletes and
that they did come to the institution for academic work and not, primarily,
football.”

2487-27

23

The Taylor Group

Appendix

2487-28

24

The Taylor Group

Division I-A Respondents
University of Akron – David Schmidly, President
Arizona State – Lattie Coor, President
University of Arizona – Peter Likins, President
Arkansas State – Leslie Wyatt, President
Auburn University – William F. Walker, President
Ball State University – Blaine Browell, President
Baylor University – Robert B. Sloan, Jr., President
Boston College – Father William P. Leahy, S.J., President
Bowling Green State University – Sidney A. Ribeau, President
Brigham Young University - Merrill J. Bateman, President
California State University at Fresno - John Welty, President
University of Central Florida - John C. Hitt, President
Clemson University - James Barker, President
East Carolina University - William Muse, Chancellor
University of Florida, Gainesville - Charles Young, President
University of Houston - Arthur Smith, President
University of Idaho - Robert Hoover, President
Kansas State University - Jon Wefald, President
University of Kentucky - Lee Todd, President
University of Louisiana at Lafayette - Ray Authement, President
University of Louisiana at Monroe - Lawrence Swearingen, President
Louisiana State University - Mark Emmert, President
Louisiana Tech University - Daniel D. Reneau, President
University of Louisville - John Shumaker, President
Marshall University - Daniel Angel, President
University of Minnesota - Mark G. Yudof, President
Mississippi State University - Malcom Portera, President
University of Mississippi - Robert C. Khayat, Chancellor
University of Missouri, Columbia - Richard L. Wallace, Chancellor
University of Nebraska - Harvey Perlman, Chancellor
University of Nevada, Reno - John M. Lilley, President
New Mexico State University - G. Jay Gogue, President
University of New Mexico - William C. Gordon, President
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - James Moeser, Chancellor
Northern Illinois University - John G. Peters, President
Northwestern University - Henry S. Bienen, President
Oklahoma State University - James Halligan, President
Oregon State University - Paul Risser, President
Pennsylvania State University - Graham B.Spanier, President
Purdue University - Martin Jischke, President
Rice University - Malcolm Gillis, President
Rutgers University - Francis Lawrence, President
University of Southern California - Steven Sample, President

2487-29

25

The Taylor Group

University of Southern Florida - Judy Genshaft, President & Jack Wheat, Special Assistant
Southern Methodist University - R. Gerald Turner, President
University of Southern Mississippi - Aubrey Lucas, President
Stanford University - John Hennessy, President
Syracuse University - Kenneth Shaw, Chancellor
Temple University - David Adamany, President
University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Emerson H. Fly, President
Texas A&M University, College Station - Dr. Ray M. Bowen, President
Texas Tech - David Schmidly, President
University of Toledo - Daniel Johnson, President
Tulane University - Scott S. Cowen, President
United States Air Force Academy - Lieutenant General John R. Dallager, President
University of Utah - J. Bernard Machen, President
Vanderbilt University - Chancellor Gee
University of Virginia - John T. Casteen III, President
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Charles Steger, President
Wake Forest University - Thomas K. Hearn, Jr., President
University of Washington - Richard McCormick, President
West Virginia University - David G. Hardesty, Jr., President
Western Michigan University - Elson S. Floyd, President
University of Wyoming - Philip Dubois, President

2487-30

26

The Taylor Group

Division I-AA Respondents
Alabama A&M University - John T Gibson, President
University of Albany - Karen Hitchcock, President
Alcorn State University - Clinton Bristow, Jr., President
Central Connecticut University - Richard Judd, President
College of the Holy Cross - Michael McFarland, S. J., President
University of Delaware - David Roselle, President
Drake University - David Maxwell, President
Furman University - David Shi, President
Georgia Southern University - Bruce Grube, President
James Madison University - Linwood Rose, President
University of Massachusetts, Amherst - Marcelette G. Williams, Chancellor
Mississippi Valley State University - Lester Newman, President
Morehead State University – Dr. Ron Eaglin, President
University of New Hampshire - Joan Leitzel, President
State University of New York at Stony Brook - Shirley S. Kenny, President
Norfolk State University - Marie McDemmond, President
Northeastern University - Richard M. Freeland, President
University of Northern Iowa - Robert D. Koob, President
Portland State University - Daniel O. Bernstine, President
St. Francis University (Pennsylvania) - Christian Oravec, T.O.R., President
St. Peter’s College - James N. Loughran S.J., President
Stephen F. Austin State University - Tito Guerrero, President
Southern Illinois University - Walter Wendler, Chancellor
Southern Utah University - Steven Bennion, President
Valparaiso University - Alan Harre, President
Wagner College - Dr. Norman Smith, President
Wofford College - Benjamin Dunlop, President

2487-31

27

The Taylor Group